>> good morning, everyone. wg to welcome back to the san francisco budget and finance committee meeting. my name is mike ferrel and we have john

avalos and mr. mar. mr. clerk, do we have any announcements? >> yes, please silence all cell phones and devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items will be appearing in the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> please call item no. 1. the clerk: item 1: 130784: [business and tax regulations code - miscellaneous changes]1307841.sponsor: chiuordinance amending the business and tax regulations code by, among other things: 11 common administrative provisionss requiring monthly installment payments rather than prepayments of hotel and parking taxes, eliminating the annual parking tax bond renewal requirement; providing a due date for business registration fees, excluding penalties from calculation of interest on tax determinations, adding an underreporting penalty for failure to file a return when tax liability exceeds $5,000 changing the penalty for failure to register or update a registration, making misstatements in a registration, failure to allow inspection or production of records, and failure to file a return; 22 tax on occupancy of parking space in parking stationss eliminating the prepayment revenue control equipment certification; 33

business registration provisionss requiring a copy of the business registration certificate rather than a business tax registration tag be displayed on company vehicles, eliminating the tax collector's authority to suspend a business registration certificate; 44 payroll expense tax ordinancee providing that interest applies to unpaid penalties but not unpaid fees and interest, changing the date that the office of economic and workforce development must provide the tax collector a list of persons eligible to claim the central market street and tenderloin area payroll expense tax exclusion; and 55 parking stations, revenue control equipmentt specifying the date the revenue control equipment compliance the clerk: sf 112341234 >> before you today is file to residue legislation and taxes code. it's administrative changes to help stream line enforcement and in changes to the code due to proposition e which is the new gross receipts tax and stream line for the entrance yet occupancy and the property tax. just to go over this document quick lau e and the highlights for business registration feechlts prop e deleted the registration and the board of supervisors. so prior to may 31, the roofers in addition are required to post a $30 tag on their automobiles while they are on-site working and this will eliminate the tag requirement and will have a copy of their registration certificate in their vehicle. we are recommending the penalty structure for our taxes and the

registration fee. currently the failure to file personality for the business registration fee is the doubling of the fee which when we had these was not a huge fee, but now that under proposition e, fees will be going up to $35. so we are recommending a pement of $100 and also following the penalty structure for all other delinquent taxes for the first 30 days it's percent of the delinquency adding the additional 5 percent for 30-60 days and an additional for 90 days and additional 25 percent after 90 days making that in line with our taxes for the

business registration fee. the code currently provides slightly different methods when a taxpayer is delinquent. the proposal for methods and what we have submitted today will bring that into line so we have one method of applying interest on delinquent taxes especially for small business enterprises. with new taxes we anticipate that business will be going in and out of small business enterprise. in order to help with calculating the correct penalties we are recommending this change. the current also has an enhanced penalty for taxpayers who significantly under report their taxers. the proposed penalty that taxpayers who do not file returns, this

is upon audit or investigation that we find that out. we found that this was a loophole in our current penalty structure that allows some taxpayers who avoid telling us anything to have lower penalties than those who simply tell us incorrect information. >> for entrance yet occupancy and park operators, the change for them in this ordinary is to have them file on a monthly basis, the taxes that they are collecting on behalf of the city. these operators currently readmit these taxes on a monthly basis but file a quarterly statement that reduce up this amount. we are recommending that they pay all on a monthly basis and then that is also leading to the words prepayment from the article 6 of the code since they are no longer prepayment for filing and reemitting every month, the taxes that you are collecting on behalf of the city. we are also recommended

the change from january 31st, through december 31st for the due date of the annual revenue control equipment fee. this change brings the due date of that fee in line with when all the certificate of authority to collect taxes which are due january 1st. the submissions of the fee is a condition of receiving your certificate of authority we thought putting it altogether so you don't have to wait 30 days to get your certificate. we also recommended an amendment to the bonding requirement for the operators. the current laws by the assurity bonding companies as requiring an additional security each year when a parking operator is in operation. for a smaller operator who doesn't have a lot of capital who isn't a large corporation, in order to secure these bonds, and make sure that

they are able to be under written, a lot of them are putting, are bonding their homes or other property and unfortunately if you have to continue to get a bond every single year and have new security each year, you soon run out of property to secure that against. so we are recommending a change where the they would be required to have to maintain that bond while they are in operation rather than maintain a new bond each year. this is for protecting the taxes in each case with these bonds. the tax collector will have a bond with at least one full year of taxes. this is an we are audit practice is to audit all of these operators within 3 years. it's something that we'll feel that the city will not be placed itself at

risk and finally some minor amendments such as deleting the tax authority to suspend businesses. we are currently have the right to suspend and also to revoke business certificates where someone did not pay their taxes . we find that the revoking is what we do rather than to suspending and we delete that process from the code and we are making updates to references in the market and tenderloin exclusion. when the items are actually submitted to oewd. this is consistent with current practice and we are making changes throughout that reference article 12 a 1 which is our gross receipts tax which had not been mentioned in some of the areas of article 6, the

provision. what were admitted today were a couple of minor edits that we caught as we were just taking our final look on page 1, line 17-19. it's the correcting the title to state exactly what i said. it updating the date where affidavits are due to economic and reports development rather than the date when oewd sent the information to us. on page 15-line 14 and line 22, those are making corrections so it is clear that the interest when a taxpayer is delinquent is owed only on the taxes delinquent rather than the taxes and penalty. just making those small clarification. with that, i'm happy to answer in i -- any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? there are none. thank you, can we go to our budget analyst

report. >> good morning. budget analyst legislative office. on page six of our report there may be some minor fiscal changes to the ordinance however we concur with the tax collectors office of these changes and proposed ordinances. >> thank you, be any questions? at this time we open to public comment. anyone want to comment on item no. 1. okay. public comment is closed. colleagues, can i have a motion? >> the amendment? >> i'm sorry about that. we do have an amendment. that was circulated by the clerk today. can i have a motion to approve the amendment? okay. a motion to approve the amendment. we do

that without opposition. okay. mr. clerk, call item no. 2. >> the clerk: item 2:[appropriation - municipal transportation agency 2013 series revenue bond proceeds - transportation capital projects and equipment - $165,000,000 - fy2013-2014]1308612.sponsor: mayorordinance appropriating $165,000,000 of 2013 series revenue bond proceeds to the municipal transportation agency for transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and parking garage projects and equipment in fy2013-2014. >> the clerk: sf 21234 item no. 3: item 3: 130866: [revenue bonds - municipal transportation agency - not to exceed $165,000,000]1308663.sponsors: mayor; farrellresolution authorizing the sale, issuance, and execution of not to exceed $165,000,000 aggregate principal amount of revenue bonds by the municipal transportation agency to finance certain transportation related projects, approving the form of certain financing documents including the official statement, the bond purchase contract, the second supplement to indenture of trust, and continuing disclosure certificate; authorizing the taking of appropriate actions in connection therewith; and related matters approving the forms of documents relating thereto; approving the maximum interest thereon; finding that the authorization and issuance of revenue bonds by the agency is not a project under california environmental quality act ceqaa, ceqa guidelines, and san francisco administrative code, chapter 31; and related matters. item no. 3: sf 31234 >> okay. we have someone here to talk about these items. >> good morning. i'm joined by

mr. blake to talk about these items. i want to thank campbell for working on this report. i won't spent a lot of detail going through it. we are asking for authorization for not to exceed $165 million on revenue bonds and capital improvements as well as debt service and financing cost. to give the board update which you approved about a year ago. we issued 63.8 million in bonds and $38 million in outstanding bond and which approximately 17 have been spent. the estimated bond is $363.4 million which 98.4 is cost. the annual debt service in the proposed series is about $24 million. the bond is a little bit over $18 million in 2014-2015. the project

allocation is $150 million project funds. we are expected to spend about $16 million in pedestrian safety. $14 million in street capital improvement for bicycle project. $30 1/2 million for guide ways. $18 1/2 million for safety and bond $1/2 million for safety and bond improvement, $46 million in boarding improvement and helping for light rail procurement. we have the interest rate to be somewhat between four 1/2 to 6 percent of the bond. the mta has a debt policy which would limit the cost of 5 percent of the operating budget. based on the combined debt service of 2013 are not expected to exceed 2.2

percent. we are going to be playing back the bonds which include all mta revenues except revenues in the general fund and new restricted special purpose sources. with that if you have any questions, we are here to answer. >> thank you, colleagues, any questions? >> supervisor avalos? >> great presentation. good to see you here. when you talk about non-again fund revenues for the mta is that generally fares and parking tickets? >> yes, fares, parking, advertising, transit funds which can be pledged. everything but general fund and designated is part of that. >> the sources of mta revenues that are excluded for bond debt repair? >> the only items that are not pledged are things like the parra transit which are

designated sources. other than that all mta sources are pledged. about $540 million of our revenues are pledged. >> any further questions? okay. at this time can we go to our budget analyst report on item 2 and 3. >> yes, page 14 of our report, this is $165 million in revenue bonds. this will be the second issuance of revenue bonds by the mta. of the $165 million $150 million is pledged bicycle pedestrian parking garage and transit projects. the remaining $15 million would be for debt services reserve and financing cost. total debt service over the 30-year term, the bond is $363 million. this is the revenue source to pay for the bonds would not include general

fund monies. the annual debt service is about 12.3 million when you diane combooin -- combine it with the 12. this is $18 million and also within the parameters for the net revenues. we recommend approval for the ordinances. >> okay. thank you. any questions, colleagues. we'll move to public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on items 2 and 3. no public comment. public comment is close. colleagues, can we move on these items? >> so moved. mr. clerk, call item no. 4. >> the clerk: item 4: 130651: [memorandum of unrecorded grant agreement - buena vista park project]1306514.resolution authorizing the director of real estate to record a memorandum of unrecorded grant agreement against assessor's

block no. 2601, lot no. 001, for the buena vista park project, pursuant to a land and water conservation fund grant agreement. recreation and park departmentt >> the clerk: sf 412341234 >> thank you. we have more an from the park department. >> yes. i will be presenting on the next two items. the current item is the option to real estate to a grant agreement against buena vista park. this is a notification to all potential property purchasesers, lessees or operators of the property restriction associate with the land water conservation fund program. the park received funding from land water conservation program in 1970 and again more recently in 2010 to retain parking improvements. all that is required for land and water funds must be for perpetuity and not be converted

to non-outdoor recreational use. to better administer this program, the california state department of parks and recreation now requires that grantees record a grant agreement against the property records. in the case of buena vista park. the property agreement has been in placed in fiscal year 70-71 when the city first accepted a land water preservation. i asking the board commend to the board of supervisors to approve. any questions? >> colleagues, any questions? thank you very much. we don't have the budget annual report on this item. any public

comment? seeing none, public comment is close. colleagues, can we move this forward without opposition? so moved. clerk, please call no. 5. >> the clerk: item 5: 130826: [accept and expend grant - mclaren park connector trail project - $186,746]1308265.sponsor: avalosresolution retroactively authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a land and water conservation fund grant from the california department of parks and recreation in the amount of $186,746 for the mclaren park connector trail project for the period of september 16, 2011, through june 30, 2014. >> the clerk: sf 512341234 >> good morning, this is the maclaren park and trail. this is an expense for a land water conservation grant in the amount of $868,000 to the maclaren park connector trial. this is be used for park entry

ways in the south side. it also plans prooment to the watch trail directly south of man sell and we'll install signs throughout the maclaren park trail system. the grant award includes a 7 percent surcharge representing about $12 12,000 that will be kept. this is a land conservation grant and director of real estate to record a memorandum of unrecorded grant agreement of maclaren park. the state has issued one for the grant including the bike trails park. the grant agreement and property restrictions have been in place since 1967 and recording the memorandum will formalize a preexisting

agreement. in closing, i'm recommending the committee, recommend to the board of supervisors recommend and extends the land water conservation plant and direct the real estate to record a memorandum of agreement at the park. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you, of course i'm supportive of this resolution and i want to notice that in the bay area of the quron acre -- chronicle about the john king story of maclaren park and while many are restoring the park, it didn't almost, it was like a reference of the old maclaren park and no what we are seeing as the changing

maclaren part and there is a great deal of advocacy and volunteer ship around the park and we are so many different ways this project is going to get restored and didn't quite get to that in the story today. i just want to make sure we can have some real positive things to say about maclaren park. i there probably three or four times a week walking through trails and i see people everywhere with the dogs and without the dogs and i see new games being played there all the time. it's wonderful so sea. this is a wonderful thing being made to improve the parks in san francisco. >> thank you, i will share that information with our public information officer. perhaps you can rebuttal or provide more information. >> okay, thank you very much. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is close. can we move forward? so moved.

mr. clerk, please call item no. 6. >> the clerk: item 6: 130795: [hearing - economic impact of city college of san francisco]1307956.sponsors: mar; avalos and camposhearing on the economic impact of city college of san francisco.sf 6124 >> this is a hearing request sponsored by supervisors mar, avalos and campos, supervisor march is the head sponsor. i will kick it over to you to run the show. >> good morning. everyone, i wanted to say that this is a ground breaking study that the budget and legislative analyst office has currently completed. i know we work with them from the beginnings of the summer until now. i think it's a report that highlights the critical economic benefits of city college to our cities economy in san francisco. i wanted to also just highlight before the chief author campbell gives the report and

shows some of the highlights that i will mention here, but to many of us that been impacted by city college, i would say that most if not all have some connection to benefit from a graduate of city college or a person that's taken non-credit classes and it's really been a, subjective feeling of the benefits, but i think this report is ground breaking because it quantifies a huge economic impact to the city and county of san francisco and the counties young and old that improve their lives find new opportunities, sometimes achieve different types of job training to fit into changing job market and really a huge economic impact to many people in san francisco. but with the accreditation crisis faced by the families and people of san francisco with the city college